This raises an interesting idea. Imagine that I have multiple personalities and that each of my personalities is aware of the others. Should Ruth, the original person, have to take the views of Ruth1, Ruth2, Ruth3, and Ruth4 into account? Furthermore, can we be sure that Ruth has the final say? If Ruth is not in favor of testing, but Ruths1-4 all want a test, how should Ruth decide? What if it is Ruth2 who sought the test in the first place? Can Ruth2 decide? These questions are outside the scope of this paper, but hopefully prove interesting food for thought¡
This raises an interesting idea. Imagine that I have multiple personalities and that each of my personalities is aware of the others. Should Ruth, the original person, have to take the views of Ruth1, Ruth2, Ruth3, and Ruth4 into account? Furthermore, can we be sure that Ruth has the final say? If Ruth is not in favor of testing, but Ruths1-4 all want a test, how should Ruth decide? What if it is Ruth2 who sought the test in the first place? Can Ruth2 decide? These questions are outside the scope of this paper, but hopefully prove interesting food for thought¡
8
77952569386
By which I mean people who are connected to our decisionmaker in different ways
By which I mean people who are connected to our decisionmaker in different ways.
9
77952580572
The question of the nature of arm is a matter for another paper, which would need to discuss whether our relatives could in fact be harmed, and whether being at risk can be considered a harm. For the time being, we can assume that being at risk can be a harm
The question of the nature of arm is a matter for another paper, which would need to discuss whether our relatives could in fact be harmed, and whether being at risk can be considered a harm. For the time being, we can assume that being at risk can be a harm.
10
77952569385
Their change in risk factor would not be as a direct result of your change in status. Your positive test diagnoses your parent, in our example, your mother. Your siblings' risks change because of the change in your mother's status, not the change in your status
Their change in risk factor would not be as a direct result of your change in status. Your positive test diagnoses your parent, in our example, your mother. Your siblings' risks change because of the change in your mother's status, not the change in your status.
11
77952577902
At the moment this particular argument can only apply to heterosexual couples. Once artificial gamete technology has been developed further and it is possible for homosexual couples to have children genetically related to both of them, the argument could be extended
At the moment this particular argument can only apply to heterosexual couples. Once artificial gamete technology has been developed further and it is possible for homosexual couples to have children genetically related to both of them, the argument could be extended.
12
77952569127
I am grateful to Anthony Mark Cutter for raising this issue. There is not enough space in this paper to give it the consideration it deserves
I am grateful to Anthony Mark Cutter for raising this issue. There is not enough space in this paper to give it the consideration it deserves.
13
77952557052
For a detailed discussion of the philosophy of the NHS see chapter 3, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press
For a detailed discussion of the philosophy of the NHS see chapter 3 of Montgomery J. Health Care Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
